The Semi-Living' and 'Partial Life'

Partial Life
edited by Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr
Introduction
'The Semi-Living' and 'Partial Life'
This Living Book is partially living – it is about the
semi-living and partial lives, about tissues without a
body. While the biological body cannot survive without
organs and cells, the latter two can survive in a
technological body, which has been removed and
separated from their original biological body. They are
living fragments of biological bodies, forms of lab-grown
life which have been reconfigured, mixed and remixed,
reappropriated, recontextualised and instrumentalised.
The semi-living thus require a different epistemological
and ontological understanding as well as a different
consideration and, by extension, a different taxonomy of
life. The liminality of this kind of technological
approach to life can lead to a form of fetishism, which
we call Neolifism. The semi-living and partial lives are
a new class of objects or beings. In most cases they
consist of living and non-living materials; of cells and/or
tissues from a complex organism which have been
grown over, or into, constructed scaffolds and
subsequently kept alive with an artificial support. They
are both similar and different from other human
artefacts (Homo sapiens’ extended phenotype), such as

constructed objects and selectively bred domestic plants
and animals (both pets and husbandry). These entities
are living biological systems which have been
artificially designed and which, in their isolation,
construction, growth and maintenance, need
technological intervention.
‘The semi-living’ and ‘partial life’ can be seen as
interchangeable terms. There are, however, some
nuances between the two. Semi-living entities are
usually shaped as forms that are not recognisable as
being part of any particular body; partial life can be
recognised as parts (such as an ear or tissue) of the
whole of a living being. Symbolically, on the continuum
of man-made life, semi-living entities are nearer to the
constructed side of the scale, while objects of partial life
find themselves closer to the grown side of the scale.
The ‘population’ of what can be referred to as partial
life and semi-living entities has proliferated to reach a
vast amount of cells and tissues that are currently
living and growing outside of the organisms from which
they originated. A rough estimate would put the
biomass of the living cells and tissues which are
disassociated from the original bodies that once hosted
them at millions of tons. In addition, there exist tons of
fragments of bodies (cells, tissues, organs) that are
maintained in suspended animation in cryogenic
conditions. All of this biomass requires an intensive
technological intervention to prevent its transformation
to a non-living state. These beings are rarely referred to
as subjects; their existence, supported as it is by the
technoscientific project, is indicative of the
transformation of life into raw material that manifests
itself through utilitarian and economic value.
This edition of the Living Book attempts ‘to give a voice’

to such semi-living beings by presenting their history
and selected examples of their use (and existence), with
the aim of highlighting the problematics they raise --
which is also a reflection of the current state of our
society. This is a society which is attempting to cope
with the growing gap between the rapidly increasing
knowledge and the technological ability to manipulate
life on the one hand, and the deeply rooted attitudes
towards life which are still lurking behind on the other.
It is a society that may be facing its own extinction as a
result of the ecological crisis and that is in urgent need
of reconsidering the Judeo-Christian view of our
supposed dominion over ‘nature’ in favour of a more
post-humanist agenda. Having control over life, its
processes and the environment as a whole has always
been the basis of human endeavour. Yet the attitudes
towards life are now changing as a result of the
accumulation of scientific knowledge and technological
capabilities -- both of which are mounting up with an
increasing speed and scale of manipulation. A
choreographed interplay between hype and actuality is
overlaid on a public which is being bombarded with
information which can potentially excite and disturb,
but which is also easily forgotten. As the perception of
the level of control over the matter of life increases, it
seems that, whereas previously biologists were
applying their understanding of engineering to the life
sciences, now it is the engineers who are force-fitting
engineering methodologies into living systems. Life is
becoming bio-matter, waiting to be engineered.
The Historical Perspective on the Semi-Living
The precursors of the semi-living can be identified in
whole bodies, which are sustained alive in technoscientific
‘bodies’. With the industrial revolution and

the rise of the age of the machines, coupled with the
naissance of the systematic understanding of life, the
late nineteenth century witnessed the birth of biology
as engineering, and the union of life and technology.
The introduction of industrial baby and poultry
incubators coincided with the birth of tissue culturing
and the appearance of the semi-living. The coming
together of life and technology manifested itself in
strange ways, as indicated by the example of poultry
incubators and the history of Cyphers Incubator
Company. The story of the development and acceptance
of human incubators (whereby an incubator can be seen
as a techno-scientific ‘body’, or ‘epi-body’), and
especially the way in which they were introduced to
America, is fascinating. It highlights how
technologically augmented life, even in human babies,
needed to be articulated and negotiated before such
babies became ‘transformed’ from objects of
entertainment to subject of care. The incubator was
initially ‘modeled after [the] chick incubator’ by
Stéphane Tarnier. The ‘American father’ of
neonatology, Dr Martin A. Couney, was a European
physician who promoted the idea of mechanical
incubators as an aid to prolonging and saving the lives
of the newly born, who would have otherwise died. The
creation of the ‘need’ for a device that would orchestrate
the ‘passage’ of an infant from a fragile ambiguous zone
into the realm of a person is a complex story. One
impetus for developing the incubator was the desire to
halt population decline. There was a need not only to
save those otherwise doomed ‘lives’, but also to
strengthen the mother-child bond (which was directly
related to infant survival). The initial design of the
incubators was already geared not solely for the
purposes of biomedicine: the incubator was also
positioned as an aesthetic device, aimed at creating

certain meanings out of the technique and the life it
sustained, and at generating empathy towards the bare
life on display. Incubators were promoted in Europe
and the USA via public fairs, during which the
enthusiastic public had to pay for admission to watch
the show of the ‘Infant Incubators with Living Infants’.
Couney had a permanent incubator show at Luna Park
on Coney Island, New York, from 1903 to 1943, and was
instrumental in Cornell University’s New York
Hospital opening the city’s first neonatal ward.
Why did a successfully working technology, which
saved so many lives, take such a long time to be
accepted by the medical community, while it was
thriving within the realm of public entertainment?
Some say that Couney never intended for the
technology to become widely available as this would
have ended his ability to profit from it by charging the
public to come and see the living display. It may have
been that the context of the Luna Park exhibition and
the showmanship involved prevented the medical
establishment from accepting this technology. These
are interesting and valid points. However, we want to
suggest that such vexed cases in which liminal beings
are in transition towards not just bare life but also
towards scientific and moral classification, have to be
articulated initially via aesthetic rather than scientific
modes of presentation. A similar story is evident in the
‘cabinet of curiosities’, which served as a prelude to the
natural history-refined taxonomy. To a certain extent,
the neonatal technology can be said to have assisted in
‘classifying’ premature babies as belonging in the realm
of the living and the human, and therefore as persons.
As a result, the context where those new lives were
dependent on their epi-bodies had to be dramatically

changed -- from the realm of entertainment to that of
biomedicine. Today the new cabinet of curiosities is
being constructed, or grown again, in the form of new
technologically-dependent and yet still to be classified
lives, lives which are being created in scientific
laboratories by emerging technologies. These new
entities do not conform or fit with classifications
propounded by natural history museums, let alone with
our traditional understanding of what life is and what
it means to be alive.
The History of Tissue Culture
The idea of the cellular body dates back to Aristotle
(340 BC) and Theophrastus (320 BC), who both
described animals and plants as being made up of
unified elements: blood and sap, flesh and fibre, nerves
and veins, bone and wood. Later, scientists such as
Malpighi (1675) and Grew (1682) theorised that these
elements were literally ‘woven’ (tissé) into tissues of
still finer elements. In 1667, Robert Hooke, using one of
the earliest microscopes, observed cell structures in a
thin slice of cork. He coined the word ‘cell’, referring to
a structure that reminded him of a honeycomb. Parts of
bodies have been sustained, grown and cultured for
more than a hundred years now. We are not talking
about the 18th century Galvani-style reanimation by
external power, but rather about the continuation of life
processes and of the functions of parts that have been
removed from bodies -- be it organs, tissues and cells.
Fluttering attempts to keep body fragments alive were
performed by in 1885 Willhelm Roux, who sustained
embryonic chicken tissue alive for short periods of time,
and by Ross G. Harrison, who grew a frog’s nerve cell
outside of the body in 1907. The ongoing existence of
living fragments, i.e., of the semi-living, appeared with

the more systematic and sometime occult practice of
Alexis Carrel, who cultured cells, tissues and
eventually organs between 1913 and the 1940s. Carrel
was a well-known and respected scientist who advanced
the medical field in the area of new techniques of
suturing arteries as well as transplantation and tissue
culturing. He won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1912.
Carrel was a complex and controversial figure, who
pushed the ontological implications of his discoveries to
some rather extreme and morally dubious places -- far
from their strictly biomedical or even scientific realms
and into ontologically, politically and ethically
questionable ones.
Carrel’s 1935 publication, Man, the Unknown,
combined with his religious, or even mystical
declarations, led him to speculate on the great problems
of human destiny. Carrel theorised that mankind could
reach perfection through selective reproduction and the
leadership of an intellectual aristocracy. Through
scientific enlightenment humanity would be free from
disease, and achieve longevity and spiritual
advancement. He proposed gas chambers as the way to
eradicate unwanted elements in society. ‘Eugenics’,
Carrel wrote in the last chapter of Man, the Unknown,
‘is indispensable for the perpetuation of the strong. A
great race must propagate its best elements’. The book,
a worldwide best-seller translated into nineteen
languages, brought Carrel international fame. Was it
the realisation that life was much more complex than
previously thought that led Carrel to mysticism? This
may have been the case, but what was it that led him to
eugenics? One can argue that the experience of
developing partial life forms, which contradicted the
Christian-humanist perception of the whole body, drove

him to engage with the occult. In short, the ontological
questions thrown up by Carrel’s scientific experiments
ironically seem to have led to his mystic and eugenic
tendencies.
However, rather than looking at tissue culture or
partial life as a metaphor for the pure and perfected
life, we would like to explore partial life (or semi-life) as
a hybrid, dependent and imperfect entity. In the 'The
Tissue Culture King', written in 1926, Julian Huxley
reflects and articulates some of the anxieties
surrounding early experiments in this field. ‘The Tissue
Culture King’ is a story about a Western scientist,
Hascombe, who is captured by an African tribe. In order
to save his life, he employs his skills in the service of an
African king. He decides to merge scientific principles
and techniques with the religious tendencies of the
tribe. Hascombe then employs tissue culture techniques
to create ‘The Factory of Kingship or Majesty, and the
Wellspring of Ancestral Immortality’. The idea is to
culture parts of the king’s (or other ancestors’) bodies
and, through that, increase the biomass of the king,
thus enabling the people of the community to own parts
of the king, and to physically nurture, care and worship
them. Furthermore, this technique promises to
‘increase the safety, if not of the king as an individual,
at least the life which was in him, and I presumed that
this would be equally satisfactory from a theological
point of view.’ Hence, the fragment stands for the whole
in this story. Huxley considers the wide implications of
the discipline of tissue culture and the associated
epistemological revelations by looking at the option of
mass production. He also considers the economic and
spiritual potential of the use and abuse of scientific
knowledge and of applied technologies and social

sensitivities (see also Wilson, 2005).
Plasticity: Cell Lines, Tissue Engineering and The
Technoscientific Body
It was not until 1948 that a continuous line of cells,
originating from one organism, was established: it was
the strain-L mouse cell line, still widely used in
laboratories. The strain-L was followed three years
later by the first continuous human cell line -- HeLa
cells. HeLa cells constitute an immortal cell line that
was derived from cervical cancer cells taken from a
black American woman, Henrietta Lacks, who died of
cancer in 1951. The cells were propagated without
Lacks’ knowledge or permission. The case reveals many
social and political paradoxes resulting from
developments in biotechnology -- such as that a person
(just like any other animal) cannot, according to the
law, own her own tissues; the commercial rights of one’s
own tissues; and issues of race, class and gender, which
are especially heightened when profit is at stake. The
realization that cells from complex organisms can not
only be sustained alive outside of the body, but also
grow, divide and function emerged in the 1910s, when
Dr. Alexis Carrel began his experiments in a technique
he termed ’tissue culture’. However, it took more than
eighty years to realize that cells could be grown in three
dimensions to form a functional tissue that had the
potential to replace missing or failing body parts. This
development came from the collaborative work of a
surgeon, Dr. Joseph Vacanti, and a material scientist,
Dr. Robert Langer. They developed a system that uses
specially designed degradable polymers that act as a
scaffold for the developing tissue.

Maintaining and growing living fragments, the semilivings,
involves the creation of a surrogate
technoscientific body (or epi-body). This technoscientific
body provides conditions that allow the cells to grow
and proliferate. In the most basic terms, this includes
providing the right temperature, nutrients and other
substances and, in some cases, substrates that promote
cell growth. The cultivated fragments are
unquestionably alive, in that they are metabolising,
growing and multiplying. They experience at least some
of the processes and functions that are needed for
something to be ’alive’. In the last couple of decades,
and only in some cases, the technoscientific body and
the semi-living have begun to form a cyborgian entity,
whereby function and feedback make such an entity a
responsive and effective unit. The growth of threedimensional
’functional’ tissues is no longer confined to
the biomedical world. As other aspects of regenerative
medicine such as stem cell, therapeutic cloning and cell
engineering are increasingly taking dominance over the
field, technologies that where originally developed for
the purpose of tissue engineering in the 1990s are now
being used for non-clinical ends. Tissues and cells from
complex organisms are being grown in large quantities
for the production of biological substances; liver cells
are being grown as toxicity sensors; different cells from
different sources (bodies and organs) are being
cultivated together in micro-fluidic chambers to make
‘animals’ on chips as an alternative to animal and
human drug testing; in vitro meat is being seriously
considered as an alternative to traditional meat
production; and an increasing number of artists,
designers and architects are working with living tissue
as part of their practice.

With regard to the current research into the production
of in vitro meat, the editors of this Living Book actually
began exploring the possibility of growing meat without
the need to slaughter animals already in 2000, as part
of their residency at the Tissue Engineering & Organ
Fabrication Laboratory at Harvard Medical School in
2000. The first steak was grown from pre-natal sheep
cells (skeletal muscle), harvested as part of the research
into tissue engineering techniques in utero. The steak
was grown from an animal that had not yet been born.
However, one major complication arising from such a
‘victimless meat endeavour’ as a manifestation of the
techno-scientific project is that it may create an illusion
of victimless existence. First, in order to grow in vitro
meat, there is still the need for a serum, which is
created by using animals’ blood plasma. Although
research to find alternatives for this ingredient is being
developed, there is no solution in the near sight and
animals (mainly calves or foetal bovines) are sacrificed
for that ingredient. Second, we need to consider the
total cost involved in running a laboratory, i.e., the
fossil fuels burned, the green house gases produced, the
water and trees consumed, the miles travelled and the
waste created. Third, what we are witnessing here is a
shift from ‘the red in tooth and claw’ nature to a
mediated nature. In this process, victims are pushed
farther away; they still exist, but are now much more
implicit and inconspicuous.
Different cells from different bodies (regardless of sex,
race, age or animal species) can be co-cultured.
Furthermore in some cases, cells fuse. Cell fusion is ‘the
nondestructive merging of the contents of two cells by
artificial means, resulting in a heterokaryon that will
reproduce genetically alike, multinucleated progeny for

a few generations’.1 When an undifferentiated stem cell
fuses with a mature differentiated cell, the resultant
cell retains the mature cell phenotype.2 Cell fusion
among different species and different families along the
evolutionary tree has been carried out successfully
since the 1970s. One example, the fusion of Xenopus
and carrot cells, was discussed in 1978: Cultured
Xenopus cells have been induced to fuse with carrot
suspension cell protoplasts using PEG at high pH in the
presence of high Ca2+. Ultrastructural observations
confirm unambiguously that the fusion bodies seen by
light microscopy are animal/plant cell heterokaryons.
The cytoplasmic events occurring in these
Xenopus/carrot fusion products during the first 48
hours of culture provide evidence for their viability (see
Davey et al., 1978). The phenomenon of cell fusion,
besides its practical applications such as a method for
passing on specific genes to specific chromosomes,
compelled Oxford University Professor Henry Harris to
write about his experience as a pioneer in cell fusion
techniques (see Harris, 2005). Harris’ 2005 article
opens with a somewhat romantic quote:
There is a tendency for living things to join up,
establish linkages, live inside each other, return to
earlier arrangements, get along, whenever possible.
This is the way of the world. The new phenomenon of
cell fusion, a laboratory trick on which much of today’s
science of molecular genetics relies for its data, is the
simplest and most spectacular symbol of the tendency.
In a way, it is the most unbiologic of all phenomena,
violating the most fundamental myths of the last
century, for it denies the importance of specificity,
integrity, and separateness in living things. Any cell –
man, animal, fish, fowl, or insect – given the chance
and under the right conditions, brought into contact
with any other cell, however foreign, will fuse with it.

Cytoplasm will flow easily from one to the other, the
nuclei will combine, and it will become, for a time
anyway, a single cell with two complete, alien
genomes, ready to dance, ready to multiply. It is a
Chimera, a Griffon, a Sphinx, a Ganesha, a Peruvian
God, a Ch'i-lin, an omen of good fortune, a wish for the
world. (Thomas Lewis, cited in Harris, 2005)
Semi-Living Art and Neolife
One of the roles that art can play is that of offering
scenarios for ‘worlds under construction’ and of
subverting technologies for the purpose of creating
contestable objects (see Dixon, 2009). This role of art
makes the emergence of the semi-livings as evocative
art ‘objects’ and the multi-level exploration of their use
so relevant and important. The Tissue Culture & Art
Project (TC&A), was set up by us (Oron Catts and Ionat
Zurr) in 1996 to explore, develop and critique the use of
tissue technologies for artistic ends. From the
beginning, TC&A has been interested on a practical
level in investigating human relationships with the
different gradients of life through the construction and
growth of a new class of objects/beings -- that of the
semi-living. The semi-living form parts of complex
organisms which are sustained alive outside of the
body, and which are coerced to grow in predetermined
shapes. These evocative objects are a tangible example
that brings into question our deep-rooted perceptions of
life, identity and selfhood, and the position of the
human with regard to other living beings and the
environment. We are interested in the new discourses
and the new ethics, epistemology and ontology opened
up by issues of partial life and by the contestable future
scenarios these partial life forms are offering us. With
this, we have relied on and developed some new ways of

growing tissue by using and subverting scientific tools
and techniques from almost a hundred years ago to the
present.
As discussed briefly earlier, one of the more interesting
interpretations, and definitely the most postanthropocentric
perspective on the existence of the
HeLa cell line, comes from a scientist, Leigh Van Valen.
Van Valen controversially suggested to his peers that
the HeLa cell line was an embodiment of a new
taxonomical branch -- that it was a new species of its
kind. Due to its ability to replicate indefinitely, and its
non-human chromosome number, Leigh Van Valen
described HeLa as an example of the contemporary
creation of a new species, Helacyton gartleri. It was
named after Stanley M. Gartler, whom Van Valen
credits with discovering ‘the remarkable success of this
species’. His argument for speciation depends on three
points: • The chromosomal incompatibility of HeLa
cells with humans, which makes them non-human. •
Their ecological niche, which may be technologically
dependent, but we can assert that many species,
including humans to a large extent, are by now
technologically dependent. • Their ability to persist and
expand well beyond the intentions and imaginations of
human cultivators.
Scientific knowledge leads to shifts in the perception of
life: life is becoming a raw material, while biology is
turning into engineering. Whenever life and technology
mix, odd things happen. Where does lab-grown and
engineered life fit in the human taxonomy? In tissue
banks that provide cell lines, one starts to find all sorts
of oddities: cells that have three different organisms as
its origins, or fused cells of human and mouse origin.
These cells are only classified by catalogue numbers or

y very unusual names. This is what we can describe as
neolife. More and more museums have started to collect
fragments of life; frozen cells that represent the whole.
Here, the technology of collection is converging with the
technology of making strange. The old ways of
privileging form (staffed idealised forms of animals) are
been replaced with information and fragments on
display. New life forms are entering collections, but the
collection is not complete -- the ‘odd neolife’ is not part
of our natural history collections, as the lab-grown, labmodified
life forms are still absent from it. Our Odd
Neolifism is an updated cabinet of curiosities. Museums
have their own conventions with regard to displaying
preserved life forms. In the Odd Neolifism display,
ideas about a progressive complexity of species are
questioned. At the far end of the display we have
included the only living element -- cell tissue within a
bioreactor (a surrogate, technological body). These life
forms are so abstracted from their source and yet they
are growing. Perhaps it is time to realise that we need
to find a place in our ecology for neolife.
A pattern, even if somewhat blurry and ever changing,
may be observed among the different examples of the
semi-living. It is manifest in the desire to sense as well
as make sense of a situation that is postanthropocentric
and in the attempt to articulate the
relation and interdependency of all living parts along
the continuum of life and technology, through the
intriguing and perplexing example of the in-between –
the semi-living. This opens up new discourses about the
different relationships we might form with these neolife
forms, allowing us to shed new light on our perception
of life. Such entities might eventually become
fetishised, or even become our 'natural-ish' companions,
thus invading and replacing our constructed and

manufactured environments with growing, moving,
soft, moist, and care-needing things.
Notes
1 http://medicaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cell+fusion
2
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articleke
y=32440
References
Davey, M. R., Clothier, R. H., Balls, M. & Cocking, E. E.
(1978) 'An ultrastructural study of the fusion of
cultured amphibian cells with higher plant protoplasts',
Protoplasma, 96:1-2, 157-172.
Dixon, D. P. (2009) 'Creating the semi-living: on
politics, aesthetics and the more-than-human',
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
Volume 34, Issue 4.
Harris, H. (2005) 'Roots: Cell Fusion', BioEssays, 2:4,
176-179. 

 W ilson , D . (2 0 0 5 ) 'Early Tissue Culture in
Britain: the Interwar Years', Social History of Medicine
(August) 18 (2), 225-243.

Articles
The Historical Perspective on the Semi-
Living
Precursors of the Semi-Living
Standard of the World Cyphers Incubator Company,
Buffalo N.Y., U.S.A. Annual catalogue, published 1896
Poultry Growers' Guide for 1912, published by Buffalo,
Cyphers Incubator Co.
Dr Lawrence M. Gartner and Dr Carol B. Gartner
The Care of Premature Infants: Historical Perspective
The History of Tissue Culture
Alexis Carrel
On the Permanent Life of Tissues Outside of the Organism
Alexis Carrel and Montrose T. Burrows
Cultivation of Tissues In Vitro and Its Technique
Alexis Carrel and Montrose T. Burrows
An Addition to the Technique of the Cultivation of Tissues
In Vitro
Alexis Carrel
Contributions to the Study of the Mechanism of the Growth
of Connective Tissue
J. A. Witkowski
Alexis Carrel and the Mysticism of Tissue Culture
Alexis Carrel
Men, the Unknown

Julian Huxley
The Tissue Culture King
The Plasticity of Cell Lines
About the ATCC-LGC Standards Partnership, which
facilitates the distribution of ATCC cultures and
bioproducts to life science researchers throughout Europe
and India
Stephen J. O'Brien
Cell Culture Forensics
Brendan P. Lucey, Walter A. Nelson-Rees and Grover M.
Hutchins
Henrietta Lacks, HeLa Cells, and Cell Culture
Contamination
The Technoscientific Body
Mark J. Powers et al.
A Microfabricated Array Bioreactor for Perfused 3D Liver
Culture
Jianzhong Xi, Jacob J. Schmidt and Carlo D. Montemagno
Self-Assembled Microdevices Driven by Muscle
Thomas Boland et al.
Cell and Organ Printing 2: Fusion of Cell Aggregates in
Three-Dimensional Gels
I. Datar and M. Betti
Possibilities for an In Vitro Meat Production System
P. D. Edelman et al.
In Vitro Cultured Meat Production
Cell Fusion

Cell Fusion
Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cells
Jeremy P. Brockes and Anoop Kumar
Appendage Regeneration in Adult Vertebrates and
Implications for Regenerative Medicine
Farhan Chowdhury et al.
Soft Substrates Promote Homogeneous Self Renewal of
Embryonic Stem Cells via Downregulating Cell-Matrix
Tractions
Hannah Landecker
Living Differently in Time: Plasticity, Temporality, and
Cellular Biotechnologies
Semi-Living Art
Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr
Towards a New Class of Being –The Extended Body
Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr
Big Pigs, Small Wings: On Genohype and Artistic
Autonomy
Oron Catts, ed.
The Aesthetics of Care
Neolife
The Tissue Culture and Art Project
The Frozen Ark Project

Attributions
Standard of the World Cyphers Incubator Company
Buffalo N.Y. U.S.A. Annual Catalogue published 1896.
Link:
http://www.slpowermuseum.com/equipment/cypher/cyp
hersManual.pdf.
Licence: In public domain. Made available via a link to
the website of St. Lawrence Power and Equipment
Museum.
Poultry growers guide for 1912, published by Buffalo,
Cyphers Incubator Co. Link:
http://www.archive.org/details/poultrygrowersgu00cyph
Licence: In public domain. Made available via a link to
the Internet Archive.
Dr Lawrence M. Gartner and Dr Carol B. Gartner, 'The
Care of Premature Infants: Historical Perspective in
Neonatal Intensive Care', NEONATAL INTENSIVE
CARE - A HISTORY OF EXCELLENCE, A Symposium
Commemorating Child Health Day Sponsored by the
National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development. Originally presented October 7, 1985,
National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland NIH
Publication No. 92-2786, October 1992. P.4. Link:
http://www.neonatology.org/classics/nic.nih1985.pdf.
Licence: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES. Public Health Service, National
Institutes of Health NIH Publication, made available
via a link to http://www.neonatology.org.
Carrell, A. (1912) 'On the permanent life of tissues
outside of the organism', Journal of Experimental
Medicine, vol. 15 no. 5 (May 1), The Rockefeller
University Press, 516-528. Link:

http://jem.rupress.org/content/15/5/516.full.pdf. Licence:
Ownership of copyright remains with Rockefeller
University Press authors. Third parties may reuse our
content for noncommercial purposes without specific
permission as long as they provide proper attribution.
Carrel, A. & Burrow, M. T. (1911) 'Cultivation of tissues
in vitro and its technique', Journal of Experimental
Medicine, 13 (3) (March 1): 387-396. Link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125263/
pdf/387.pdf.
Licence: Ownership of copyright remains with
Rockefeller University Press authors. Third parties
may reuse our content for noncommercial purposes
without specific permission as long as they provide
proper attribution. Available in PubMed Central c/o
Rockefeller University Press. PMCID: PMC2125263.
Carrel, A. & Burrow, M. T. (1911) 'An addition to the
technique of the cultivation of tissues in vitro', Journal
of Experimental Medicine, 14 (3) (September 1): 244-
247. Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2124775/
pdf/244.pdf. Licence: Ownership of copyright remains
with Rockefeller University Press authors. Third
parties may reuse our content for noncommercial
purposes without specific permission as long as they
provide proper attribution. Available in PubMed
Central c/o Rockefeller University Press. PMCID:
PMC2124775.
Carrel, A. (1913) 'Contributions to the study of the
mechanism of the growth of connective tissue', Journal
of Experimental Medicine, 18 (3) (September 1): 287-
298. Link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125069/
pdf/287.pdf.
Licence: Ownership of copyright remains with
Rockefeller University Press authors. Third parties
may reuse our content for noncommercial purposes
without specific permission as long as they provide
proper attribution. Available in PubMed Central c/o
Rockefeller University Press. PMCID: PMC2125069.
Witkowski, J. A. (1979) 'Alexis Carrel and the
mysticism of tissue culture', Medical History, 23:279-
296. Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1082475/
pdf/medhist00098-0025.pdf. Licence: Available via a
link to PubMed Central, PMCID: PMC1082475.
Articles from Medical History are provided there
courtesy of The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History
of Medicine at UCL.
Carrel, A. (1935/1939) Men, the Unknown, HARPER &
BROTHERS. Link:
http://quantumfieldtheory.org/ALEXIS%20CARREL%2
0Man%20the%20Unknown%201935.pdf.
Licence: In public domain. Available here via a link to
The Quantum Field Theory blog.
Huxley, J. (1946) 'The Tissue Culture King', in Great
Science Fictions by Scientists, Groff Conklin Ed.,
Collier Books NY pp.147-170 1946. Link:
http://www.revolutionsf.com/fiction/tissue/index.html.
Licence: In public domain. Available here via a link to
Revolution SF.
About the ATCC-LGC Standards Partnership. Website
link.

O'Brien, S. J. (2001) 'Cell culture forensics', Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, vol. 98, no. 14 (July 3), 7656–7658. Link:
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/14/7656.full.pdf
Licence: Available here via a link to PNAS Online.
PNAS Online launched in January 1997 and now
receives over 21 million hits per month. The site
contains the full text, figures, tables, equations, and
references of all articles in PNAS dating back to 1990.
Lucey, B. P., Nelson-Rees, W. A., & Hutchins, G. M.
(2009) 'Henrietta Lacks, HeLa Cells, and Cell Culture
Contamination', Archives of Pathology & Laboratory
Medicine: September , Vol. 133, No. 9, 1463-1467. Link:
http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.1043/154
3-2165-133.9.1463. Licence: Copyright © 2011 College of
American Pathologists. Available here via a link to the
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine website,
where this article is free to read.
Powers, M. et al. (2002) A microfabricated array
bioreactor for perfused 3D liver culture, Biotechnology
and Bioengineering, volume 78, issue 3, 237-353. Link:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~mctbl/BiotechBioeng2002
_LiverChip.pdf Licence:
Xi, J., Schmidt, J. J., & Montemagno, C. D. (2005) 'Selfassembled
microdevices driven by muscle', 1, in Nature
Materials 4, 180 - 184.’
Link:
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v4/n2/full/nmat13
08.html.
Licence: Copyright: Nature Publishing Group. Made
freely available on the Nature website and offered here
via a link.

Boland, T. et al. (2003), 'Cell and Organ Printing 2:
Fusion of Cell Aggregates in Three-Dimensional Gels',
The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in
Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, Volume
272A, Issue 2, Link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.a.10059/pd
f.
Licence: © 2003 WILEY-LISS, INC. Made freely
available on the Wiley Online website and offered here
via a link.
Datar, I. & Betti, M. (2010) 'Possibilities for an in vitro
meat production system', Innovative Food Science and
Emerging Technologies, 11, 13–22. Link:
http://www.newharvest.org/img/files/datar_and_betti.pdf.
Licence: © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Made available here via a
link to the New Harvest website.
Edelman, P. D., McFarland, D. C., Mironov, V. A., &
Matheny, J. G. (2005) 'In vitro cultured meat
production', Tissue Engineering, May/June, 11(5-6):
659-662.
Link: http://www.new-harvest.org/img/files/Invitro.pdf.
Licence: Author's manuscript. Made available here via
a link to the New Harvest website.
Cell Fusion definition, link to The Free Dictionary by
Farlex. Link: http://medicaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cell+fusion
Brockes, J. P. & Kumar, A. (2005) 'Appendage
Regeneration in Adult Vertebrates and Implications for
Regenerative Medicine', Science 23 December, Vol. 310
no. 5756, 1919-1923. Link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5756/1919.full

Licence: DOI: 10.1126/science.1115200. Freely available
on the Science website and offered here via a link.
Chowdhury, F. et al. (2010) 'Soft Substrates Promote
Homogeneous Self Renewal of Embryonic Stem Cells
via Downregulating Cell-Matrix Tractions', PLoS One,
5(12): e15655. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015655. Link:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%
2Fjournal.pone.0015655.
Licence: © 2010 Chowdhury et al. This is an openaccess
article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
credited.
Landecker, H. (2005) 'Living Differently in Time:
Plasticity, Temporality, and Cellular Biotechnologies',
Culture Machine, Vol 7. Link:
http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/vie
wArticle/26/33%3E.
Licence: © Landecker. Culture Machine is an openaccess
journal.
Catts, O. & Zurr, I. (2006) 'Towards a new class of being
–The Extended Body', Artnodes, Issue 6, November.
Link:
http://www.uoc.edu/artnodes/6/dt/eng/catts_zurr.pdf
 Li
cence: This work is subject to a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 2.5
licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast
provided that the author and the journal that publishes
it (Artnodes) are cited. Commercial use and derivative
works are not permitted. The full licence can be
consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/2.5/es/deed.en.

Catts, O. & Zurr, I. (2005), 'Big Pigs, Small Wings: On
Genohype and Artistic Autonomy', Culture Machine,
Vol 7. Link:
http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/vie
w/30/37.
Licence: © Catts & Zurr. Culture Machine is an openaccess
journal.
Catts, O. 'Aesthetics of Care', Ed. ISBN: 1 74052 080 7.
Link:
http://www.tca.uwa.edu.au/publication/THE_AESTHET
ICS_OF_CARE.pdf.
Licence: © Catts. The Aesthetics of Care is published by
SymbioticA, School of Anatomy and Human Biology,
University of Western Australia, 35 Crawley Avenue,
Nedlands 6009. Western Australia. August 2002.
www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au